Clark Griswold

2 - I didn’t see anything hair raising in that maneuver Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, that speed seemed way low (never flew the 17 but just seemed very aggressive for a plane that big, dropping retardant at a very low altitude over large fires and likely serious turbulence). Agree with your skepticism, seems to have some thought to it but take with 2 mg of salt. Not sure if the Aussies thought about a dual role for this platform but there are kits to make the mighty C-27J a fire bomber... https://tangentlink.com/far-from-spartan/ Aussie's already have 10.

Some folks have done some work on that for RAAF C-17's: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anil_Raj_Ravindran/publication/273124144_Aerial_Bushfire_Quencher_C-17_Conversion_for_Fire_Fighting_Operations/links/54f7a76c0cf2ccffe9db5dcf/Aerial-Bushfire-Quencher-C-17-Conversion-for-Fire-Fighting-Operations.pdf Referencing @skibum 's comment above, with enough money anything is possible..

Agree with all, LO is mainly about giving an offensive advantage and I think keeping some of our "Allies" mainly defensively strong but with enough offensive power to keep certain enemies at risk is the best / least bad option. Russia is looking for export customers for the Su-57 and have mentioned UAE, probably not too far that they would try to tempt the KSA with an offer. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-su-57-stealth-fighter-coming-soon-persian-gulf-97532

Habit I think but as the generations change on both sides I think that habit is dying. The recent events culminating with the students at Pensacola and beyond I hope have moved the decision makers to formulate a new strategy with the KSA. Not nearly as close with back up contingencies to mitigate problems if they go full retard, I would put them at half right now. Dodging the slight of not offering them the 35 would require a bit of diplomatic two step but is feasible, quietly telling to just stop asking. The anecdote @Steve Davies relayed would likely be repeated a 1000 fold at some point, China/Russia eventually getting access to ALIS or ODIN, when that replaces ALIS. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31861/replacement-for-f-35s-troubled-alis-cloud-based-brain-rebranded-odin-and-is-still-years-away

Article on F-35 sales to the KSA: https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/the-united-states-shouldnt-sell-the-f-35-to-saudi-arabia/ Author is against it but gives a balanced look with pros along with cons listed. My two unsolicited cents, no.

This Subaru F.U.C.K.S. https://www.thedrive.com/news/31783/this-subaru-f-u-c-k-s?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation

I'm fine with that but we have to find that right balance between Congressional oversight and approval for war / long-term operations and the reality of the modern operational environment needing often swift decision making with an executive enabled to take decisive action(s). The War Powers Act is a good idea and just needs to be updated (regularly) and acknowledged by the Executive Branch. A long enough leash to let the dog keep the bad guys at bay but still is there to keep the dog from running wild thru the neighborhood. Agree on problematic rhetoric, some on the right and left are using language they know is bullshit.

Maybe it's on a sliding scale but one that is not linear, we know when the curve goes exponential and I suspect they do too. Single digits and killed in an indirect fire incident will probably not get Kharg Island or Tehran turned to rubble but it will get something destroyed of value with the intention of killing Iranians in the process, both sides know that this is a function not equation. As to consensus, yes required for major, on going actions; responding in kind or some multiple of it to punish, dissuade, preserve honor and reestablish deterrence, no. Congress is necessary in the overall scheme of things but not where the direct action needs to happen. The pax on the jet can tell the pilot about the ride but ultimately the pilot is in control, duly noted. Now when the jet the lands the pax don't have to buy another ticket and without that the jet doesn't go, they have an input just not at every moment. LOAC does not prevent destroying civilian infrastructure if said infrastructure is used in war making / supporting activities, for the attacker it is a matter of how many degrees of separation from said war making activities you believe are required before you consider it off limits. Mosques used to shield fighters are legitimate targets, hospitals with AAA guns on them are legitimate targets. POL facilities that support directly or indirectly war efforts of an enemy (state or non-state) are legitimate targets if you trace the economic output of them to the enemy inside of the range of separation you deem appropriate for military action. Will respectfully part company with you on rando chest thumping on the internet, you approach the problem from the angle as you wish it to be rather than what it really is. You've mentioned on BO that you sit on the left side of the isle, fine you're choice but the problem with the Western left is that it incorrectly believes everyone else in the world in charge of other non-Western countries wants the same things for their people, has some common values with the West or can be reasoned with based on what will bring them material gain. None of those things is inherently true. There are vast swaths of the world that don't want their people to live to well, that are not interested in peace or normal relations with the rest of the world as they need external enemies to distract their populations from the incompetence and corruption of their rule and do not in anyway respect or want to live in the "rules based order" that the West thinks is/has to be ascendant across the globe. These people respect power and act on fear. Fear they will lose their power and/or lives. Occasionally kicking the shit out of them when they get too frisky is just an unpleasant fact of life if we wish to have a presence in their area of the world and or keep them from getting leverage over too much. You're right we do have lots of options as a superpower but make no mistake, no one respects a strong dithering pussy. A big strong guy that allows a weaker, aggressive, loud bully to push him around doesn't actually have anyone's secret respect, they (the crowd watching) are just waiting to see what happens and to go with the winning team. I'm not saying to just willy nilly throw power around and act like an ass around the world, but when it is time, just do it and state it was in our interest to resolve the matter favorably to our interests. No apologies, no over analyzing it. Victory is a rationalizing force all it's own.

Discussion on PPRune: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/628650-ukrainian-aircraft-down-iran.html Links, pictures, commentary - worth a skim

Little more information getting out about the Ukrainian 737 (only 3 years old) coming out, got to 8000' on departure profile normal for that regularly scheduled flight then something happened and came down on fire with debris scattered over a wide area, consistent with a catastrophic event compromising the hull, saw an aviation talking head that found the continuing fire on the jet as odd, kinda agree with that as most jets have several shutoff / one-way valves for fuel/hydro upstream of the motors, also very effective halogen bottles for the engine pod(s). Media is not dismissing the idea of an accidental shoot down. What say this thread? I'm a maybe but it is only suspicious at this time. Sabotage seems unlikely as why would you bomb a foreign flag aircraft of a non-belligerant nation to yours flying out of your country's main airport? Mechanical / Structural failure is possible but unless it was a particularly extreme event the debris field would be localized when the mishap aircraft crashed. SAM engagement near Tehran is possible but would the Iranians be that itchy on the trigger finger that deep inside their own country?

Noted and your point is legitimate, I would call it a deliberate sacrifice to try to shape events favorably Take the sensors out of the oldest Block 10 GH and put a ballast load in, fly it just inside 12 NM off their coast let them give it a Viking Funeral Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 They will likely try an asymmetric attack so before that we should give them and asymmetric show of force demonstration. Basically all the oil they export goes thru Kharg Island and they have other critical points we can apply pressure to if needed. Right at 12.1 NM off Kharg, drop 500+ bombs from a mixed formation of B-2s, BUFFs and BONEs with a 30 ship of fighters generated and just waiting to be cut loose. Not waremongering but saber rattling for right reasons, if you retaliate against us in a way that can not be accepted (i.e. you kill our civilians or other non-combatants or have your proxies commit an act of terrorism against such targets) we will cripple that which funds your government and is the vast majority of your economy. That is the price, no apologies, no dithering, no discussion and no hesitation. We will destroy your oil exporting capability via stand off weapons and we will close the Strait of Hormuz, if others complain about it (left leaning nations of Europe, Asia, etc...) fine, you're own your own for other defense matters (collective security, deterrence, support, etc). Sometimes super powers just have to get shit done. Like or not, a COA was taken that has got us here, strength and resolve is the only way to get all players on an off ramp to lowered tensions. My unsolicited advice, give them an opportunity to save face and destroy another RPA to embarrass the Great Satan but use back channels to let them know we will destroy everything we can of value to their petroleum exporting capability.

Interesting article on Congressional interest in planning for a growth in Aggressors: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31697/congress-wants-an-aggressor-modernization-plan-before-adversary-f-35s-head-to-nellis Linked article also makes an interesting suggestion that we should consider it not just in Aggressor Fighters but Aggressor Capability and author (Rogoway) suggests Aggressor AWACS to supplement GCI. If you're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar (millions of them) so expanding the idea: dedicated Aggressor AWACS, Growlers/Prowlers, RPAs, mobile SAMs, etc...? We would still have RF at Nellis but build an entire Aggressor Wing(s) at an existing or reactivated base(s) for bigger LFEs Value or a product of the office of redundancy?

Yup, also keeping Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea afloat to pique at us from time to time. We should find clients to antagonize them also and support with little restraint so long as they cause them trouble (Ukraine, Vietnam, KSA, etc...). Another article on the subject https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/04/killing-soleimani-was-necessary-and-shows-america-must-withdraw-from-iraq/ Decent and a short read, correctly repeats the refrain that another pointless US led conflict in the ME only benefits the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis of shit.

We may be told to leave and a new can of worms opens: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-primeminister/rival-shiite-leaders-in-iraq-call-for-us-troop-expulsion-in-rare-show-of-unity-idUSKBN1Z20JO Not sure how to view this move, but they killed an American, that's Trump's redline and unlike the other guy, he acted. Something had to be done as you can only be pushed so many times until you have to give someone a bloody nose. Dude was a legit target but try to avoid by 10 NM anything that would draw us in any further (directly) into any conflict in that region. We save blood and treasure by not taking the bait sometimes. The whole ME is just an insoluble problem that is not actually that important to the US anymore. We should begin a slow disengagement over the next 3 years. Tucker Carlson with JD Vance had intelligent commentary on this, at the 18:20 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLk22tGaD1Q

Agree that it would get shanghaied often with too much visibility / control by high level / centralized folks so I would argue due to the low cost, low footprint and low capability of this support asset, it should be penny packet'd down to the Wing/OG level to allow for that support you alluded to with the gone too soon Spartan. The AF would have to relax it's typical death grip of control and junkie like addiction to constant visibility on every asset and allow the lower echelons to self-organize and manage these small airlift requirements and maybe even ISR requirements. Likely a mutual support system at a peer to peer level, help your bros and your bros will help you, don't and you're probably on your own. Now that (de-centralized control) could come with a lot of second order effects (good and bad) - quick support to units with requirements that fell below the line in a centralized planning process but airspace coordination/control issues by unknown players showing up if not communicated properly as examples.

A potential problem no doubt but methinks the Bobs could only be sold on this if it was cheap, has multiple capabilities and little to no developmental risks. Hence, a platform like the Churchill modified Caravan or another similar turn key solution with sensor stations, hard points, payload capability, etc... already engineered is the only option, if acquired. Just my two cents but I would see the fleet of these switching roles as the conflict changes. During major combat ops, it serves as a liaison platform for light cargo/pax movement where it can operate, during stabilization ops with low threat airspace established it can swing as required to ISR support.

Yup but more mobility focused likely. ISR (stations, sensors, downlinks, etc...) purchased as required for augmented capability as required, ditto for Strike capability. Yeah, it's not revolutionary in ISR capability necessarily and integrating the sensors would require the vendors of different equipment to be open enough with specs to allow for plug-n-play in an Open Mission Architecture. Likely challenging but feasible. Tom Churchill in the video said that they had worked with multiple sensor manufacturers in their Mission Management business so they could probably deliver. Now would that be a seamless cross-cue between different sensors (SAR to FMV for instance) and/or a sensor fused display for all data, IDK but seems that is what they were alluding to. Posted as an example of what I think would be required of a Utility Platform that could also fulfill a revised Liaison Aircraft role. Utility platform with capability to expand / contract roles as required for capabilities that could be delegated directly to units.

Grist for the mill: Churchill Navigation has a mod for a Cessna Caravan that could fill a light / utility aircraft role Pylons for sensors (no mention of weapons capability), removable sensor stations, open arrangement for cargo/pax Buy it with a defensive system or capability to accept one, military radios, NVG compliant cockpit, etc... and assign to the Air Guard 😉 Utility platform for light airlift, tactical ISR (fully/semi-manned with federated sensors), possibly light precision strike if hardpoints are/can be weaponized and just my two cents, a potential tactical C2/Sensor Overwatch platform for small scale GMTI / AMTI for dismounted movers and small RPAs / UAVs (ISIS used quad-copters fairly effectively against SDF / YPG)

ditto

Godspeed @matmacwc.

Yup, expeditionary/dispersed capability built in from the wheels up.

Yup...that's about the same range as Northern Australia to cover all of Indonesia or Spratly Islands. An LO platform that as a singleton that could deliver the A/G effects of 2 x F-35 without AR across a theater (I define that as 750 NM) is what were talking about IMHO. Develop a platform to compliment the F-35 to continue the strategy of raising the capes of capable allies to keep the strategic competitors deterred.

Another potential partner for new LO attack platform to give Allies regional power projection / deterrence.